On May 7, 2004, individuals in the custody of the Florida Department of Children and Families (DCF) filed a civil rights suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, challenging the conditions of their confinement at the Florida Civil Commitment ...
read more >

On May 7, 2004, individuals in the custody of the Florida Department of Children and Families (DCF) filed a civil rights suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, challenging the conditions of their confinement at the Florida Civil Commitment Center (FCCC) in Arcadia, Florida. Plaintiffs were all involuntarily civilly confined at the FCCC pursuant to Sexually Violent Predator Act §§ 394.910, et seq. Fla. Stat. (2003). Plaintiffs alleged violations of their constitutional rights, specifically their 14th Amendment rights, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et. seq. (ADA) by the denial of effective sex offender treatment programs, lack of appropriate mental health care, and the failure to identify and accommodate inmates with disabilities in a way that would allow them to participate effectively in sex-offender treatment. Attorneys for the Southern Legal Counsel, Inc., the Florida Institutional Legal Services, Inc. and the Legal Advocacy Center of Central Florida, Inc. represented plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as class certification. Defendants named in the Complaint were the DCF and the private corporation Liberty Behavioral Healthcare Corp. which operated the FCCC pursuant to a contract with the DCF.

Discovery and discovery related disputes comprised the majority of the case activity for the next several years.

On January 16, 2007, the District Court (Judge John E. Steele) granted Liberty's motion to be dismissed as a defendant, on the grounds that Liberty no longer operated the FCCC and that the plaintiff class sought declaratory and injunctive relief, but not money damages. Plaintiffs moved to join GEO Group, Inc., the company contracted to run the facility for a five-year term beginning on January 1, 2007, as a defendant. This motion was granted, but because of likely delays that would have resulted from GEO's participation as a party, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed GEO on June 4, 2007. The case continued against DCF.

Discovery disputes and failed attempts by other inmates to join the case as intervening plaintiffs dominated the case docket for the next two and a half years. The case was scheduled to go to trial in September 2009, but on July 16, 2009 the parties moved to have the case stayed while a settlement was finalized. The case settled on November 23, 2009, and the case was dismissed with prejudice.

The settlement established a Final Action Plan, which itself was not, the parties agreed, a judicially enforceable settlement or court issued injunction. The Plan called for improvements to the oversight and staffing of the inpatient mental health unit, the implementation of policies addressing the screening and referral process for the use of anti-androgens, comprehensive discharge planning for Phase IV residents, modifications to the special needs treatment track, and additional training for clinical staff and housing staff. The Final Action Plan also acknowledged significant improvements implemented by DCF and GEO during the pendency of the case. All of the issues in the plaintiffs complaint were either addressed by the terms of the Final Action Plan, or had been addressed by changes to FCCC's policies during the pendency of the case. The Final Action Plan was scheduled to be fully implemented by February 2010.

The defendants agreed to pay $249,000 in fees and costs to the plaintiffs' attorneys.

Several class members objected to the settlement. They argued, inter alia, that the settlement should have required a federal monitor or court oversight to ensure compliance. The district court rejected this argument when it approved the settlement, and several class members then filed separate appeals to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which denied each appeal, and on February 24, 2010 affirmed the District Court's approval of the settlement.

Interested Class Action Parties' Motion to Intervene on New Legal Issues Violation of Due Process Liberty Interest and Motioning for an Investigation for an Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order Relief 12/15/2008